78 THE GROUNDWORK OF SCIENCE

К оглавлению1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 
68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 
102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 
119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 
136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 
153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 
170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179  181 182 183 184 185 186 
187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 
204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 
238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 
255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 
272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 
289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 
306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 
323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 
340 

 

as would warrant us in drawing the conclusion that it

necessarily postulates, short of annihilation, actual extension.

But in order to be able to affirm with certainty that the

extended the external world exists, it is by no means

necessary to know its intimate " nature," and the absolute

exhaustive truth about all or any of its qualities. " Qualities "

and " relations," as such, are, of course, mere abstractions,

though every one of them has a foundation in those real

things of which they are truly predicated.

 

The difficulties raised by Dr. Bradley are very largely

verbal ones, and result from the impossibility of our imagin-

ing what is beyond our sensuous experience, and from his

proneness to make use of exceedingly sensuous illustrations.

 

Appearance, he tells us,* must belong and yet cannot

belong to the extended.

 

But it is not evident that something extended may not

exist in our vicinity which our sensitive faculties may be

unable to perceive, so that it cannot appear to them ; and

it is certain that multitudes of extended bodies exist in

space (so to speak) which never can appear to any human

being. So much for the first alternative. As to the second,

" appearance " can and does belong to the extended, in so

far as it has objective qualities and powers which our

faculties are able to apprehend. The " appearance " is

partly objective and partly subjective, or rather it is in one

sense the former and in another sense the latter, just as we

have seen colour and sound are both objective and subjective.

 

That the extended comes to us " only by relation to an

organ," and is " perceived through an affection of our body

and never without," is another objection. But why should

we not apprehend extension through our organs, and what

doubt does such a means of apprehending it cast on the

truth of our apprehension? Why also should we doubt

 

 

as would warrant us in drawing the conclusion that it

necessarily postulates, short of annihilation, actual extension.

But in order to be able to affirm with certainty that the

extended the external world exists, it is by no means

necessary to know its intimate " nature," and the absolute

exhaustive truth about all or any of its qualities. " Qualities "

and " relations," as such, are, of course, mere abstractions,

though every one of them has a foundation in those real

things of which they are truly predicated.

 

The difficulties raised by Dr. Bradley are very largely

verbal ones, and result from the impossibility of our imagin-

ing what is beyond our sensuous experience, and from his

proneness to make use of exceedingly sensuous illustrations.

 

Appearance, he tells us,* must belong and yet cannot

belong to the extended.

 

But it is not evident that something extended may not

exist in our vicinity which our sensitive faculties may be

unable to perceive, so that it cannot appear to them ; and

it is certain that multitudes of extended bodies exist in

space (so to speak) which never can appear to any human

being. So much for the first alternative. As to the second,

" appearance " can and does belong to the extended, in so

far as it has objective qualities and powers which our

faculties are able to apprehend. The " appearance " is

partly objective and partly subjective, or rather it is in one

sense the former and in another sense the latter, just as we

have seen colour and sound are both objective and subjective.

 

That the extended comes to us " only by relation to an

organ," and is " perceived through an affection of our body

and never without," is another objection. But why should

we not apprehend extension through our organs, and what

doubt does such a means of apprehending it cast on the

truth of our apprehension? Why also should we doubt